Evoluiton can't account for higher-level animal behaviour

[SLP]

(Note that little tweaks of a couple amino acids might be called "new", but it's not a new protein.)

Still waiting for your science-backed definition of "new" protein, and why you believe "new proteins" are a requirement for speciation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Objectively, for science, that's true. There is no "guiding hand"..

But subjectively for the organism, that often false. Humans for instance are rational creatures, and this capacity is an adaptation.

OK; So?

Lets use the example of nutrients in a sea vent situation.

Then, aren't certain classes of microbes going to be attracted to it? And if early life developed there, then isn't "replicator-environment attraction" terminology just another way of viewing "replicator-natural selection"?

If you like, but I already explained why this isn't particularly useful.

If an extremophile could be asked, which type of habitat do you like, wouldn't it like (be consciously attracted to) e.g. a deep sea vent?

They're not conscious.

If you had a choice of habitat, which would you be attracted to - heaven or hell? See next paragraph, but if an extreme thermophile ( Thermophile - Wikipedia ) could "choose a heaven" it would probably not be Islamic. What good are so many too cool rivers to a such microbe?

That's too confused to comment on.

... some basic insights into religion may come from evolutionary theory.

I agree with this, but for more plausible reasons, e.g. Origins of Religious Beliefs, Evolution of Religion, etc.

Can't we use the argument "Mind is an adaptation, adaptations function to attract to certain habitats, therefore we ought to expect some habitat preferences (subjective liking, attraction etc.) to be expressed in mind?" as a valid basis for study???

Study of what, exactly? That argument doesn't make a useful hypothesis, it has vague and untested untested assumptions. If you did find subjective habitat preferences, it could be for entirely unrelated reasons (e.g. familiarity).

Is seems too much of a coincidence to me that e.g. taxis (movement towards a stimulus) in animals thought to be aware e.g. a cockroach looking for dark and damp places, IIRC. has developed through a process of natural selection (or attraction.) And the insect selects it (or is attracted to it, i.e. the roach to a dark and damp place) because of natural forces.

Creatures have been selected for behaviours that aid reproductive success... That's just evolution.

Its like a symmetry. There is selective pressure on the organism (emanating from a certain habitat) which leads to the selection of that habitat by the organism. Given a evolving choice, its attracted to the conditions which keep it alive.

In microbial language:

"If you select me, then I select you...

If you attract me, then I'm attracted to you...."

Is it really surprising that you will prefer an environment that you're well-adapted to?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is actual verification actually not impossible, a priori? I'm not sure.

Strictly speaking, neither verification nor falsification of a theory is possible in isolation, because theories don't exist in isolation, they depend on a network of related assumptions. In practice, we take a pragmatic approach and specify confidence levels.

 

[loveofourlord]

Still waiting for your science-backed definition of "new" protein, and why you believe "new proteins" are a requirement for speciation.

And also how it relates to evolution. Is gene duplication new protein, or do they mean whole cloth with no precurssor, does that mean a non coding area becomes a coding area? Which may randomly happen every so often, but be the rarest, and if not that, then it can't refer to anything that happens.

Something they don't seem to get is once we hit lobed finned fish or something simular, 90% of things beyond that is just changes to existing things, some new genes and such, but like monkey to human isn't a series of brand new features and such it's just changes to what exists 99% of.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Hey thanks for having patience with me!

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Does "the explanatory gap" or the "mind body problem" have relevance to physical theories of evolution then. Yes, or no, or maybe sometimes?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I agree with this, but for more plausible reasons, e.g. Origins of Religious Beliefs, Evolution of Religion, etc.

I know about the theory of mind idea, and from a scientific angle its well argued.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Growingsmaller Can't we use the argument "Mind is an adaptation, adaptations function to attract to certain habitats, therefore we ought to expect some habitat preferences (subjective liking, attraction etc.) to be expressed in mind?" as a valid basis for study???

FrumiousBandersnatch
OK; So?

Study of what, exactly? That argument doesn't make a useful hypothesis, it has vague and untested untested assumptions. If you did find subjective habitat preferences, it could be for entirely unrelated reasons (e.g. familiarity).

Well, human ethics systems for example. My idea is they're all examples of rational attraction to being, or related to it in some way if you include suicide ethics.

At least the ethical systems which promote survival.... and therefore attract us to (or, link us up to) continued existence. Attract us to being in some way.

And in an at least proto-raitonal manner. By proto rational I mean... attraction to being or selection of the forces which lead to survival of a person or a group is basically the function of ethical systems (just as arms and legs have a similar function in life too, i.e. continued existence, although in a different way e.g. locomotion rather than via axiological reasoning (see book link below)) .

....Although no classical system really has had the more developed scientific insight we can have in this age.

Rational meaning actions, or beliefs (or even desires) in accord with proper reasoning (I got the definition form an epistemology a to z), and proper reasoning in ethics having the form "better options ought to be chosen".

Now if, as we seem to agree:

Is it really surprising that you will prefer an environment that you're well-adapted to?

It seems I can argue like nature is forcing a move on us ethically. We ought to choose what's better, and what is better gets there through the process of evolution generally having a funcition of making survival, flourishing, and a good environment preferable to us....


For 'better options should be chosen' as a logical idea click on axiological logic entry page 22.

Book link: The A to Z of Logic

So to recap rationality is proper (fitting) reasoning or activity. Fitting reasoning can be axiological (It can btw also be mathematical, or mechanical etc. whats fitting reasoning depends of the ontological domain its applicable to. You don't use Pythagoras ideas to work out which habitat to choose..).

The value differentials (e.g. between habitats) we face are determined in part by evolution. Evolution forces the move "Habitat A is better than habitat B".

Therefore choosing "the better" is rational for us (e.g. the better habitat, choose it), and choosing the better is also generally "destined" to have a survival promoting and life enhancing function.

Rational attraction to being.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, human ethics systems for example. My idea is they're all examples of rational attraction to being, or related to it in some way if you include suicide ethics.

At least the ethical systems which promote survival.... and therefore attract us to (or, link us up to) continued existence. Attract us to being in some way.

You can describe almost any tendency in terms of attraction - even repulsion (attraction to the absence of the repellant).

And in an at least proto-raitonal manner. By proto rational I mean... attraction to being or selection of the forces which lead to survival of a person or a group is basically the function of ethical systems (just as arms and legs have a similar function in life too, i.e. continued existence, although in a different way e.g. locomotion rather than via axiological reasoning (see book link below)) .

....Although no classical system really has had the more developed scientific insight we can have in this age.

Rational meaning actions, or beliefs (or even desires) in accord with proper reasoning (I got the definition form an epistemology a to z), and proper reasoning in ethics having the form "better options ought to be chosen".

Now if, as we seem to agree:

It seems I can argue like nature is forcing a move on us ethically. We ought to choose what's better, and what is better gets there through the process of evolution generally having a funcition of making survival, flourishing, and a good environment preferable to us....

There's a good argument that the foundations of ethics & morals are evolutionary, but it's a controversial step to go from what is to what ought to be. The problems for ethics, now that it's no longer a matter of mere survival, are to do with matters like, precisely what do we mean by a 'good environment', who decides what is 'preferable', what happens to those who disagree, and so-on. The evolutionary fundamentals can develop in many different directions - as you can see from the varying ethics and morals in human cultures.

There have been many attempts to devise ethical philosophies, but all seem to have problems, and should all depend on common consent on the goals? for example, even if we agree that society should be fair and equitable, do we all agree what that should mean in all circumstances? If not, what? Does my freedom to swing my fist always end at your nose?

The value differentials (e.g. between habitats) we face are determined in part by evolution. Evolution forces the move "Habitat A is better than habitat B".

Environments are typically in flux; for most there is no choice - and in the long term, it's 'adapt or die'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I know about the theory of mind idea, and from a scientific angle its well argued.

Is there an 'angle' from which it isn't well-argued?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Does "the explanatory gap" or the "mind body problem" have relevance to physical theories of evolution then. Yes, or no, or maybe sometimes?

Yes; as it happens, I'm reading Thomas Nagel's 'Mind and Cosmos'. where he argues (not very well) that materialist reductionism can't explain it, theism kicks a larger ontological can down the road, and he'd like something that makes mind or consciousness somehow fundamental. He seems to be asking for a teleological universe along the lines of a version of the Strong Anthropic Principle (e.g. the universe inevitably produces consciousness) without going the whole hog into panpsychism...

It is widely accepted as a problem, and there are many suggestions for solving it, from dualist theologies to monist panpsychisms, but none of them really explain how we have subjective experience. My own view, at present, is that we should continue the good progress we are making identifying the physical correlates of consciousness, and the more we find the less significant the gap will appear. As I've said elsewhere, I suspect that we'll find that systems structured to process certain information in certain ways (e.g. embodied brains) will have some degree of subjective awareness when they do that. It's a minimalist approach

I also think it's a mistake to reify the mind as an immaterial 'thing' if it's just a convenient name for a physical process (for example, we don't say a 'run' is a mysterious immaterial thing that makes your legs take you from A to B at speed - it's just the physical process of running from A to B). The mind is the brain thinking, and thinking is processing information.

The evidence for the mind as a physical process is in the attributes it has - intentionality, for example, the property of being about, or referring to things in the world. This implies having references, which means information; and using references means processing information. Similarly, selectivity (attention) implies processing information, and transience is also a feature of information processing. Information is a fundamental physical property; in quantum mechanics, it's not energy or charge that's conserved, it's information. As it happens, the brain is arranged as an incredibly efficient and complex information processor. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[Speedwell]

Many autonomous robots run on an internal map of external reality. The more sophisticated versions create that map as they move around and bump into things. But they navigate with respect to that map rather than interacting directly with the external world. So do we, I think. Our "awareness" is of an internal mental construct, not of external reality.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

You can describe almost any tendency in terms of attraction - even repulsion (attraction to the absence of the repellant).

There's a good argument that the foundations of ethics & morals are evolutionary, but it's a controversial step to go from what is to what ought to be.

I think from is to ought - its ok "formally" like A is better then B, we ought to choose that which is better, therefore we ought to choose A.

The problems for ethics, now that it's no longer a matter of mere survival, are to do with matters like, precisely what do we mean by a 'good environment', who decides what is 'preferable', what happens to those who disagree, and so-on. The evolutionary fundamentals can develop in many different directions - as you can see from the varying ethics and morals in human cultures.

Yes I agree there are so many potential instances of A and B its mind boggling.

There have been many attempts to devise ethical philosophies, but all seem to have problems, and should all depend on common consent on the goals? for example, even if we agree that society should be fair and equitable, do we all agree what that should mean in all circumstances? If not, what? Does my freedom to swing my fist always end at your nose?

I hope not!

The way I look at things, trying to de-complexify the issue, is that health being good for the person whose health it is, is some kind of evolved trait.

If your health matters, ontologically, primarily it matters to you.

But that evolved trait is a function of life in a community.

So, we ought to choose health, but also respect community as insofar as it is part of the "bringing forth" of health..

So, we can be aware of types of thing (health personally, solicitude socially, sustainability economically) which are good, or ought to be pursued.

Even though on the ground decision making is sometimes in a in a complexity jam.

I know its no great news, but I think its more insightful than lets say Social Darwinism, or the idea we have a duty to have as many children as possible - which ideas still float around. Evolutionary ethics - Wikipedia

Again I know its no breakthrough, but we can look at the idea of "the flesh/ nefesh" or "the nafs" or "the appetites" and say that moral systems can explain the need to control them (e.g. in Platonism intellect rules over apppetites and also passions) as reflective of the development of the psyche over evolutionary time. With that lizard brain coming before the higher functions which function (to a degree) to keep it in check.


I think that's right, but an noz a scientist.

Environments are typically in flux; for most there is no choice - and in the long term, it's 'adapt or die'.

Well I was raised an environmentalist, so I have biases. *smiles*

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I know I can be a bit annoyingly simple and repetitive, and also make long splurgey posts.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ok, that works for me.
But you have to actually have evidence to work with.

So, what is your evidence?

Evidence?


I would need more data/evidence from which to abduct.

Where is it?

My take is that you are arguing from feelings, not evidence.



Because you present no data or evidence.

Me?
I don't really have an opinion because I do not know enough about the topic. I am just curious as to the foundations of the certainty of supernaturalists for their largely evidence-free positions.

Its not a supernatural position. Its entirely natural.

Now, do you possess consciousness? Are you aware at present of the writing on the screen?

If you type "yes", how do you explain that causal process?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The quote:

"Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."

Matthew 26:40-43 NIV;KJV - Then he returned to his disciples and - Bible Gateway

...can be (not must be) understood as expressing the need to control basic or more primitive psychological functions. i.e. intellect and spirituality over the appetitive aspect of self.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Also, if we insert the idea the spirit concept is related to God concept and "theory of mind" functions in the brain, then the willing spirit (see above post) is programmed or influenced sociologically or culturally - the theory of mind being not only a basic brain function but also influenced by thinking, ideas etc.

So we could have a social systems view of theory of mind, alongside the grey matter thesis.

Social neuroscience, but also social neurotheology.

e.g. “When our study participants were instructed to think about a savior, about being with their families for eternity, about their heavenly rewards, their brains and bodies physically responded,” says lead author Michael Ferguson, Ph.D., who carried out the study as a bioengineering graduate student at the University of Utah." This Is Your Brain on God | University of Utah Health

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What difference does having a God concept make to ones brain dynamics, as opposed to being atheistic. I think studies may suggest it makes one more emotional, rather than classically intelligent (there is IQ difference between the faith groups).

So, maybe higher IQ doesn't cause atheism, it results from it. And the high flying atheists in the sciences are there because of a neuro-theological (and therefore sociological and cultural) preference.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What a social systems view of neuro-theology might reveal about prayer for others, loved ones etc. I do wonder.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think from is to ought - its ok "formally" like A is better then B, we ought to choose that which is better, therefore we ought to choose A.

But that begs the question. Your premise, "A is better then B" contains a value judgement, an implied 'ought'; i.e. "you ought to think that A is better than B".

Whether you can legitimately get an ought from an is has been debated since Hume, and the consensus is that you can't.

The way I look at things, trying to de-complexify the issue, is that health being good for the person whose health it is, is some kind of evolved trait.

That's just a tautology - good health is good, by definition. Nothing to do with evolved traits.

So, we ought to choose health, but also respect community as insofar as it is part of the "bringing forth" of health..

Oughts imply goals and goals imply opinions and value judgements. It's easy to find trivial examples where it all seems to work, but, for example, if we ought to choose health, we ought not to risk ill-health... but what about adventure, exploration, dangerous sports, medical experiments, etc.? These kinds of things make us the species we are, so we ought to do them too, right?

So, we can be aware of types of thing (health personally, solicitude socially, sustainability economically) which are good, or ought to be pursued.

They're all goals, which depend on value judgements. You're just saying the goals you want to achieve are good so you ought to pursue them - and why are they good? because they're the goals you want to achieve...

I know its no great news, but I think its more insightful than lets say Social Darwinism, or the idea we have a duty to have as many children as possible - which ideas still float around. Evolutionary ethics - Wikipedia

Not a very high bar...

With that lizard brain coming before the higher functions which function (to a degree) to keep it in check.

Have you considered that the higher functions may instead be a means for the lizard brain to achieve its goals in more sophisticated and indirect ways, i.e. in complex environments that require flexible responses?